13 reviews for this add-on

good

Very good Project for our new experiment

Actually we are also working on this kind of project. and you've made a good combination of codings.

Rated 4 out of 5

by SecXploded, 2 years ago

sohail

99714029

Rated 3 out of 5

by sohailkibria, 2 years ago

Good start, but...

This could be a really handy add-on, but unfortunately, without the ability to copy & past the info it generates, its usefulness is *VERY* limited ;^<

Rated 2 out of 5

by Mex5150, 2 years ago

dBm / logarithms / OMG

In the "WiFi Finder" Add-on, the column with the signal-strengths is labeled "Signal." The units are dBm.

A higher number is a stronger signal? A lower number is stronger signal? dBm / logarithms / OMG

I like this explanation better:

Background -- refresher of elementary arithmetic; we're talking about "The Number Line." I wish I could include a graphic of a ruler that goes from -80 to +20; 0 is in the middle, somewhere; and of course actual numbers go below -80 and above +20. For example, two ways of saying the same thing:

20 is a higher number than 10. (20 is more positive than 10.) 10 is a higher number than 0. (10 is more positive than 0.) 0 is a higher number -10. (0 is more positive than -10.) -10 is a higher number than -20. (-10 is more positive than -20.) -20 is a higher number than -80. (-20 is more positive than -80.)

The signal strengths in dBm follow the number line. Harmoniously, the stronger the signal strength, the higher the number in dBm, and/or, the "more positive" the dBm value.

For instance, a signal that's -60 dBm is stronger than a signal that's -80 dBm, because -60 is a higher number than -80. Or if you like the other nomenclature, -60dBm is a stronger signal than -80 dBm, because -60 is "more positive" than -80.

As a signal gets stronger and stronger, its dBm value may cross over "0" and become positive. However, even when I physically touch my USB WiFi adapter to my router, I cannot get a level higher than about -20. I have never seen a WiFi signal with a positive dBm value -- they are not needed to provide coverage around the house.

In summary, that means we're stuck with dBm values that are normally "negative," which can cause confusion to break out. But I hope it becomes 2nd nature that a stronger signal has a higher value, i.e., a more positive number -- which is intuitive, right? And the WiFi Finder add-on displays the numbers correctly, with all of their minus signs.

Where do the logarithms come in? I don't think it's important to analyze that, unless you want to take up Math as a hobby. All that's necessary to "use the tool" is to properly interpret which is the "higher number," and know that's the "stronger signal."

I give 4 stars to WiFi Finder because I'd also like to see which channel the different signals are on. I would be concerned if the neighbor's signal is as strong (or stronger) than my router's signal. But if we are on different channels, then it wouldn't be a concern anymore.

Rated 4 out of 5

by neil_j, 5 years ago

Keeping it (but disabled until...)

Could be handy as quick way for grabbing MAC's but I'll be keeping it disabled until I need to do that....for whatever reason that may be! (btw working on Windows 7 running Firefox 19.0)

Meh, not great, not horrible.

My mac shows 22 WAP listed and this doo-da shows at most 19. So it's not horrible but definitely wouldn't be reliable. I'm uninstalling it.

Rated 3 out of 5

by Brittany , 5 years ago

IT DOES NOT WORK!!!!

I'm using windows 7 and Firefox v18 and nothing happens when I click the icon. It's useless!!!

Rated 1 out of 5

by BKO99, 5 years ago

Misinderstanding in the instructions?? and javascript error

The instructions say that "Signal strength is in dBm so the lower the better it is". My experience is that the best signal strength seems to be from networks with a higher value. Am I misinterpreting?

Causes JavaScript error: 2147500037 on start-up. Disabling this one add-on prevents the error.

Edit: I'm using an ethernet connection alternatively with wireless - because of local wireless inefficiencies. The JavaScript error seems, although I haven't tested it exhaustively, to occur when Firefox is started with wireless disconnected.